Talk:(What's the Story) Morning Glory?/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pass.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Pass
 * Has an appropriate reference section.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is stable. No edit wars.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Original research. I don't see obvious signs of original research.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Images now tagged.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Query
 * Prose is a little unclear or awkward in places. "The album was Oasis' most enduring commercial success..." Enduring seems inappropriate, and doesn't fit in with "was" or the rest of the sentence. "Noel Gallagher performed all the songs he intended the group to record for its next album on the band's tourbus" There's an ambiguity in the sentence. Did Gallagher play the songs on the bus, or intend that the band should record the album on the bus? "Oasis began recording their next album...." The article is about the album, so that should be "Oasis began recording the album...." or "recording What's the Story....", otherwise it's not clear which album is meant. Long, awkward sentences: "When Noel subsequently took his turn to record his vocals for "Don't Look Back in Anger", Liam went to a local pub and came back accompanied by a crowd of people while his brother was recording." Wrong wording: "A replacement was announced in Scott Mcleod of The Ya-Yas." The article needs a decent copy-edit. The more I notice, the more I think this may be a fail.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Focus. There are times when the article is going slightly beyond the album itself, such as commenting on the open air concerts. A tour to promote the album would be appropriate to mention, but I am uncertain that those big concerts, the Knebworth ones a year after the album's release, could be classed as promotional for the album.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems excessive detail:  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Coverage. I'm not expecting a lot of coverage of composition for a GA; though in comparison with the other sections in the article, the composition section is a little thin, especially for such an important album which appears to have available sources in terms of the reviews. Are there other sources or books besides the Harris one that could be used to inform the article?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The album is referred to as both "(What's the Story) Morning Glory" and "What's the Story" in the body of the article. I think you should stick to one or the other. What a pro. (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fail
 * To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:200841469;encoding=jpg;size=300.jpg does not have an appropriate non-free rationale.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Album fur placed, and file renamed File:Morning Glory (singles box).jpg.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Inline sourcing is lacking in places. The first paragraph of "Background and recording" is unsourced. Quotes such as "a proper fight" need an immediate inline cite. There are various bits of opinion unsourced - "their celebrity wives in Patsy Kensit and Meg Matthews only heightening their popularity with British paparazzi", "he cultural ubiquity of the album within Britain and its huge success worldwide resulted in an uprecedented amount of anticipation for their third album, Be Here Now", "This was an unorthodox method for the time", etc.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the Reception section to indicate areas where more secure inline citation would be useful. Not every spot needs citing, but an end of sentence inline cite would be needed for statements that appear to be opinion, are quotes or are statistics.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * NPOV. The tone of the article is a little laudatory, and reluctant to admit of the album's known weaknesses. "Despite its snowballing commercial success, What's the Story was released to lukewarm reviews....", is phrased as an argument to suggest that the music critics were wrong to criticise the album simply because it was popular. The phrases "apparent inferiority", "supposedly banal lyrics" are expressing an editorial opinion.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold
There is a good deal of information on the album, and it's arranged in appropriate sections. The article presents in a tidy and attractive manner. However, the prose needs attention, the lead needs building, and there needs to be firmer inline citation. The image of the box set needs an appropriate non-free rationale. Some of the defensive and/or laudatory language needs adjusting. And some attention paid to getting the balance right on coverage. A search for other sources beside Harris would be helpful. I'll put the review on hold for an initial seven days to allow work to be done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm extending the hold for another week, as some work has been done, and it has been the holiday season; however, I'd like to see some positive progress on the sourcing issue.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Responses
Thanks for your GA Review of the article. Will look at adding suggested improvements throughout the next week. I do have a query about your points on Focus, and the open air shows in particluar. Although, yes, these concerts (Loch Lomond, Knebworth etc.) were not part of the album's initial promotional schedule, the events were a direct result of the success of the album and were landmarks in the band's career at that point.

These two sources group the gigs as being part of the What's the Story world tour, and in remarking that "With their second LP, (What's The Story) Morning Glory?, now 10 months old, everyone had it down pat", the second source seems to portray the gigs as a direct result of the album and its popularity.

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/music/oasis-knebworth.htm http://www.citylife.co.uk/news_and_reviews/news/5086_ten_years_on___oasis___knebworth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. There is also this: (What's the Story) Morning Glory? Tour. I think it would be worth having a section summarising the tour, and linking to the fuller article.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's true they probably don't belong in the 'Reception' section but considering it is only a very brief paragraph on the major open air ahows of the world tour, I'm not sure if it is enough to consititute its own section?


 * The shows by themselves, no; but the world tour, yes. I hadn't thought that the open air shows were considered as part of the Story Tour, but the linked article appears to indicate that they were. I haven't looked at the sources for that article, and they'd need to be checked to ensure that those open air concerts are regarded as part of the Story Tour, but if they check out, then yes, you could make a decent section on that huge tour!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added as many sources as I can to the Reception section, although I worry it might hinder the quality of the article. The BPI 'Highest Certifications' citation is there, you just need to click the 'Highest Certifications' link from the BPI databse link that is in the citation, because as it is flash-orientated, no direct link to te page can be used. Also, I don't understand the documentation banners in the background section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work! I'll take a closer look later and see what else (if anything) still needs doing. I note that the tour has not yet been covered. I may do something on that myself.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I completely forgot about the tour section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sections look good!! Was it necessary to dumb down the writing quality and descriptive detail in some areas though? I know it must remain as neutral and to-the-point as possible, but I fear the edits might hinder the readibility of the article. The Be Here Now article for example makes for a great read due to its high quality wording. Why should this article not be in the same boat! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly yes. I understand what you are saying, and there was a tendency for a while on Wikipedia for editors to have an individual flourish, though this has now been replaced with a firm commitment to neutral facts. The thinking being that it is the facts that people are looking for in an encyclopedia, and that prose flourishes should not hinder that, especially if the prose flourishes are pushing readers in a certain direction. The editor(s)' prose nor the editor(s)' opinions should intrude between the reader and the facts. It's not easy to remove the editors entirely, as we are selecting and organising the information, but the more we can move away from individual flourishes and achieve a common encyclopaedic writing style the better it is for all. There shouldn't be a sense in which the writing varies from article to article, nor from section to section. The writing should be business like. See WP:TONE for a bit more on this.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Makes sense I suppose. Thanks for clearing that up. Ah well, article looks a lot better than it did a few weeks ago, looks like a GOOD quality article to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't like to fail it at this stage, though the lead still needs building. The lead should be able to stand alone as an overview of all the significant points raised in the article. Essentially each major section in the article should be summarised in the lead.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you check the quote "seemed to reveal little more inspired than a string of musical hand-me-downs". It doesn't make sense as written. It seems to be missing a word after inspired, such as "songs".  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. I have a copy of the book though, and that is exactly how it is worded...we couldn't really modify it could we? I suppose perhaps we could phrase it like this?; "seemed to reveal little more inspired (songs) than a string of musical hand-me-downs". I'll work on the rest of your suggestions now :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We're almost there. The Composition section needs attention to pull together what is being said, and perhaps move the "loudness war" material to the recording section. A summary of the composition section can then be put in the lead, and we're done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tried to better refine and shape each section a little bit more, with a few extra quotes here and there. Can't think of what else it needs now, let me know of anything else you think may need done! Think its pretty much done as well as it could be. Hell, it looks like a feature article to me.

Pass
Excellent work. Listing as a Good Article. I've enjoyed working on this - it took me back to the day! What an exciting time that was. I was teaching on the Isle of Sheppey at the time, and I took a bunch of students up to Earls Court to see the band. Another one of my students was related to Meg Matthews, and would sometimes turn up in class with a letter from her or some little gift she had sent. I recall him telling me one day that she had come and picked him up in THAT Rolls Royce for a trip out! Nice kid - played in a trad jazz band.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in taking the article to Featured Article status, I'd be prepared to help out. The next stage would be Peer Review, and a good copy-edit. User:Malleus Fatuorum is the best person to ask, though he may be a bit distracted by the ArbCom case.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers. You took your students to Earl's Court?! Now that's what I call a hip teacher. The Meg connection is pretty cool, shame Noel could never drive or else he could have picked the student up!

I'll probably just let it sit as a good article for a while, has been good working with you. Once I get some more free time soon I think I might be motivated to see this as a feature article sometime soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)